IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.K.MOHANAN FRIDAY, THE 12TH DAY OF JULY 2013 21ST ASHADHA, 1935 Crl.MC.No. 2854 of 2013 () --------------------------- CC.NO. 983/2011 OF JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT,PERUMBAVOOR CRIME NO. 93/2011 OF KODANAD POLICE STATION , ERNAKULAM ------------------------------------------ PETITIONER(S)/ACCUSED NO 1 TO 4.-------------------------------------------------------- 1. INDIRAMMA, AGED 6 YEARS, W/O JANARDHANAN PILLAI, SUDHARMA VILASAM HOUSE, THODAPARAMBU, IYMURI, KOOVAPPADY.
2. JANARDHANAN PILLAI, AGED 7 YEARS, S/O.UMMINI PILLAI, SUDHARMA VILASAM HOUSE, THODAPARAMBU, IYMURI, KOOVAPPADY.
3. PRATHAPAN @ UNNI, AGED 4 YEARS, PRANAVAM HOUSE, THODAPARAMBU, IYMURI, KOOVAPPADY.
4. MINI, AGED 3 YEARS,W/O PRATHAPAN, PRANAVAM HOUSE, THODAPARAMBU, IYMURI, KOOVAPPADY. BY ADV. SRI.LIFFY P. FRANCIS RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANT : ------------------------------------------------------ 1. MANJU SUDHEER, AGED 3 YEARS, W/O SUDHEER, SUDHARMA VILASAM HOUSE, THODAPARAMBU, IYMURI, KOOVAPPADY,ERNAKULAM DISTIRCT -PIN-68”
2. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. R1 BY ADV. SMT.BOBBY RAPHEAL.C R2 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT. S.HYMA THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 12-07-2013,ALONG WITH CRMC.NO.2855/2013 AND CRMC.NO.2862/2013, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: sts Crl.MC.No. 2854 of 2013 () ------------------------------------- APPENDIX PETITIONER(S)' ANNEXURES: --------------------------------------------- ANNEX A1 CERTIFIED COPY OF THE FIR IN CIRME 93 2011 OF THE KODANADU POLICE STATION ANNEX A2 CERTIFIED COPY OF THE CHARGE SHEET IN CC NO 983/2011 PENDING BEFORE THE JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT, PERUMBAVOOR ANNEX A3 TRUE COPY OF THE AFFIDAVIT SWORN BY THE IST RESPONDENT DATED 29 06-2013 RESPONDENT(S)' ANNEXURES: NIL /TRUE COPY/ P.A.TO.JUDGE sts V.K.MOHANAN, J.
------------------------------------------------------- Crl.M.C.Nos.2854, 2855 & 2862 of 2013 -------------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 12th day of July, 2013 ORDER As all the cases arose out of the issues connected with the matrimonial dispute between Sudheeran, who is the husband and Manju Sudheeran, who is the wife and the petitioners in the above Crl.M.Cs. are the relatives of the said Sudheeran and in all the cases the respondent, who is none other than the wife, is the de facto complainant.
2. The above cases are heard together and disposed of by this common order.
3. The facts involved in the above cases are that the marriage between one Sudheeran and Manju Sudheeran solemnized on 05/11/2003 in accordance with the rights and customs prevailed among the Hindu religion and thereafter while they were residing as husband and wife difference of opinion arose among the spouses mainly connected with the domestic issue and also connected with the dowry. Thus, upon the complaint preferred by the wife, namely, Manju Sudheeran Crl.M.C.Nos.2854, 2855 & 2862 of 2013 :-2-: Crime No.93 of 2011 was registered in the Kodanad Police Station for the offences punishable under Sections 341, 323 & 34 of IPC, which eventually resulted in instituting C.C.No.983 of 2011 in the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Perumbavoor. The very same wife initiated proceedings under Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act alleging that the accused, who are the husband and his mother committed offence punishable under Section 31 of Protection of the above Act, Crime No.79 of 2010 has also been registered in the Kodanad Police Station and on the basis of the report therein C.C.No.504 of 2010 is also instituted in the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Perumbavoor. Besides the above two crimes, Crime No.107 of 2010 was registered in the Kodanad Police Station alleging offences punishable under Sections 498-A, 323 & 324 of IPC and the police, on completing the investigation, filed a final report in the court below. Based upon which C.C.No.460 of 2010 was instituted in the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Perumbavoor. Thus, Crl.M.C.Nos.2854, 2855 & 2862 of 2013 :-3-: Crl.M.C.Nos.2854, 2855 & 2862 of 2013 directed against the proceedings respectively in C.C.Nos.983 of 2011, 504 of 2010 and 460 of 2010, under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. with a prayer to quash all proceedings pending against the accused therein, who are the petitioners in the above Crl.M.Cs. on the ground that the matter is settled out of court.
4. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners as well as the 1st respondent in the above three petitions. I have also heard the learned Public Prosecutor.
5. Both the counsel for the petitioners and the respondent/ de facto complainant submitted that the matter is settled for ever on the basis of the amicable settlement arrived at between the parties. Annexure-A3 is the affidavit filed in all the above cases which duly sworn into by the de facto complainant.
6. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that, during the pendency of the above case, the dispute is settled amicably between the parties which is the subject matter of Crl.M.C.Nos.2854, 2855 & 2862 of 2013 :-4-: the above cases. Therefore, the continuation of the proceedings in the above case is abuse of process of law and proceedings.
7. The learned counsel for the 1st respondent who on the basis of specific instruction received from the respondent submitted that the above respondent, who is the de facto complainant does not intend to proceed any further against the petitioners and she has no grievance against them.
8. I have carefully considered the above submissions of the respective counsel. I have verified the documents and materials produced along with the above petition including Annexure-A3 affidavit. In the given facts and circumstances of the case and especially in the light of the settlement arrived between the parties to the dispute, the learned Public Prosecutor has also no objection in allowing the above petition.
9. Having regard to the facts and circumstances involved in the case, it can be seen that the offences involved in the above case are only under Sections 341, 323, 498(A), 324 & 34 Crl.M.C.Nos.2854, 2855 & 2862 of 2013 :-5-: of IPC and Section 31 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 which are more or less personal in nature and no public interest is involved. It is pertinent to note that though such offences are involved, the real parties to the dispute approached this Court after having amicably settled the matter. From the submission made by the counsel for the 1st respondent, it appears to me that the de facto complainant has no further grievance against the petitioners/accused in the light of the settlement arrived by them. In this juncture, it is relevant to note the decisions of the Honourable Apex Court reported in Gian Singh v. State of Punjab [2012(4) KLT 108(SC)] and Jitendra Raghuvanshi and Others v. Babita Raghuvanshi and another [2013 (1) KLD 81.(SC)]. In Gian Singh's case, the Supreme Court has held as follows:- "57. The position that emerges from the above discussion can be summarised thus: the power of the High Court in quashing a criminal proceeding or FIR or complaint in exercise of its inherent jurisdiction is distinct and different from the power given to a criminal court for compounding the offences under S.320 of the Code. Crl.M.C.Nos.2854, 2855 & 2862 of 2013 :-6-: Inherent power is of wide plenitude with no statutory limitation but it has to be exercised in accord with the guideline engrafted in such power viz;(i) to secure the ends of justice or (ii) to prevent abuse of the process of any Court. In what cases power to quash the criminal proceeding or complaint or F.I.R. may be exercised where the offender and victim have settled their dispute would depend on the facts and circumstances of each case and no category can be prescribed.. It is further held as follows:- "......... But the criminal cases having overwhelmingly and pre-dominatingly civil flavour stand on different footing for the purposes of quashing, particularly the offences arising from commercial, financial,mercandile, civil, partnership or such like transactions or the offences arising out of matrimony relating to dowry etc. or the family disputes where the wrong is basically private or personal in nature and the parties have resolved their entire dispute. In this category of cases, High Court may quash criminal proceedings if in its view, because of the compromise between the offender and victim, the possibility of conviction is remote and bleak and continuation of criminal case would put accused to great oppression and prejudice and extreme injustice would be caused to him by not quashing the criminal case despite full and complete settlement and compromise with the victim........" Further, in Jitendra Raghuvanshi's case, the Apex Court has held as follows:- "7. It is not in dispute that matrimonial disputes Crl.M.C.Nos.2854, 2855 & 2862 of 2013 :-7-: have been on considerable increase in recent times resulting in filing of complaints under Sections 498A and 406 of I.P.C. not only against the husband but also against the relatives of the husband. The question is when such matters are resolved either by the wife agreeing to rejoin the matrimonial home or by mutual settlement of other pending disputes for which both the sides approached the High Court and jointly prayed for quashing of the criminal proceedings or the FIR or complaint by the wife under Sections 498A and 406 of I.P.C., whether the prayer can be declined on the sole ground that since the offences are non-compoundable under Section 320 of the Code, it would be impermissible for the court to quash the criminal proceedings or FIR or complaint.
8. It is not in dispute that in the case on hand subsequent to the filing of the criminal complaint under Sections 498A and 406 of IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961, with the help and intervention of family members, friends and well-wishers, the parties concerned have amicably settled their differences and executed a compromise/settlement. Pursuant thereto, the appellants filed the said compromise before the Trial Court with a request to place the same on record and to drop the criminal proceedings against the appellants herein. It is also not in dispute that in additional to the mutual settlement arrived at by the parties, respondent/-wife has also filed an affidavit stating that she did not wish to pursue the criminal proceedings against the appellants and fully supported the contents of the settlement deed. It is the grievance of the appellants that no only the Trial Court rejected such prayer of the Crl.M.C.Nos.2854, 2855 & 2862 of 2013 :-8-: parties but also the High Court failed toe exercise its jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code only on the ground that the criminal proceedings relate to the offences punishable under Sections 498A and 406 of IPC which are non-compoundable in nature." "12. In our view, it is the duty of the Courts to encourage genuine settlements of matrimonial disputes, particularly, when the same are on considerable increase. Even if the offences are non-compoundable, if they relate to matrimonial disputes and the Court is satisfied that the parties have settled the same amicably and without any pressure, we hold that for the purpose of securing ends of justice, Section 320 of the Code would not be a bar to the exercise of power of quashing of FIR, complaint or the subsequent criminal proceedings.
13. There has been an outburst of matrimonial disputes in recent times. The institution of marriage occupies an important place and it has an important role to play in the society. Therefore, every effort should be made in the interest of the individuals in order to enable them to settle down in life and live peacefully. If the parties ponder over their defaults and terminate their disputes amicably by mutual agreement instead of fighting it out in a Court of law, in order to do complete justice in the matrimonial matters, the Courts should be less hesitant in exercising its extraordinary jurisdiction. It is trite to state that the power under Section 482 should be exercised sparingly and with circumspection only when the Court is convinced, on the basis of material on record, that allowing the proceedings to continue would be an abuse of the process of the Court or that the Crl.M.C.Nos.2854, 2855 & 2862 of 2013 :-9-: ends of justice require that the proceedings ought to be quashed." Considering the particular facts and circumstances in this case, it can be seen further that the criminal proceedings are initiated consequent to the matrimonial dispute arose among the parties and both the disputes are now amicably settled between the parties. According to me, in the light of the facts and circumstances involved in the present case and particularly in view of the settlement arrived in the present case, the dictum laid in the above decisions will be squarely applicable in the present case. According to me, as the parties to the dispute settled the issues amicably, it is the duty of this Court to promote such settlement, instead of compelling the parties to go on with the dispute. It is pertinent to note that since the matter is settled out of court, in the event of proceeding with the trial, there would not have any fruitful prosecution, resulting the conviction of the accused, rather the net result would be sheer waste of judicial time and abuse of process of the court and proceedings. Thus, according to me, Crl.M.C.Nos.2854, 2855 & 2862 of 2013 :-10-: following the decisions cited supra, this Crl.M.C. can be allowed granting the relief as sought for. In the result, the above Crl.M.Cs. are disposed of quashing all the proceedings pending against the petitioners/ accused and the FIR and reports thereon in C.C.Nos.983 of 2011, 504 of 2010 and 460 of 2010 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Perumbavoor. V.K.MOHANAN, JUDGE skj True copy P.A. to Judge